In the digital age, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is revolutionising our lives in ways that were unimaginable only a few years ago.
As AI-powered technologies become more sophisticated and widely used, they are also creating a new set of legal challenges, particularly when it comes to copyright law.
AI-generated images can be created without human input or intervention, which raises questions about who holds the rights to these works and how they should be protected.
This discussion has started up once again, following recent news that Getty Images is taking legal action against the creators of an AI image-creation tool.
Infringement of rights
Getty Images, which sells the rights to stock images and editorial photography for business and consumers, stated that Stability AI’s Stable Diffusion system had violated these rights.
The founder of Stability AI, Emad Mostaque, previously said that Stable Diffusion is taught using a condensed file of “100,000GB of images” taken from the internet.
Researchers found that this included material sourced from Getty Images, prompting the agency to take legal action.
What does the law say?
Under UK law, copyright protection begins with an original idea or expression of an idea that is put into a tangible form. This applies to AI-generated images as well.
When a computer program creates an image from scratch or modifies an existing image, the result is considered a new work protected by copyright, even if it was almost entirely generated by a machine.
As such, the person who created the computer program to generate the image is usually recognised as its author and someone entitled to benefit from its use.
However, questions arise when AI technology is used to modify or enhance existing images.
For example, if a photographer uses an AI program to edit their own photo, does this mean they gain additional rights over what was initially theirs?
In short, it depends on whether any additional creativity has been involved in creating something that would qualify as a new work under UK copyright laws.
If no creativity was involved in modifying the photo but merely a technical application of AI techniques, then no additional rights should be granted over what already exists in the original photo unless there has been some significant alteration beyond mere enhancement or minor modification.
As the battle between Getty Images and Stability AI continues, discussions surrounding AI-generated content and copyright only grow louder.
What are your thoughts?
For advice on matters related to intellectual property, contact our team today.